Sin City question

[9 to 5]

First of all, Kaney, don't cut my head off.

Second of all, why does it seem everyone hypes this film up to high heaven? I watched it last week and found it a decent film but that's about it at the top. The filming style is very different which works quite well especially for something based off a carton. Also there were some good performances, especially from Rourke and Owen.

After that, I don't see the big appeal. The stories lacked a bit and went way too fast for me. Kinda reminded me of that Street Fighter anime (only one I have ever seen I swear >_>). The film introduced a sheadload of charactors that could be interesting at least but they breezed through them in 5 minutes or so and you learnt nothing about them. Felt like it has famous people in it for the sake of it. Yes I know there are sequels planned but alot of the interesting people got killed. Also the way some of the action scenes were way too cartoonish and silly for me, but that I can accpet is my own taste and suits this film. Bruce Willis, whom I normally like, I thought wasn't up to much in this. Seemed phoned in and his charactor arc bored me shitless.

Rosario Dawson was pure sex however.

Anyway, am I just the only one who feels that Sin City is a decent film but nothing more or Am I just by myself? Because I really don't see the big thing here, wouldn't be the first time true but still I would love to know.

[ACCBiggz]

It's not based from a cartoon. And it owns your soul.

[The Z-Man]

Well, I believe it's a great film. One of the reasons is it's a great translation of the original comic books. Rodrigeuz has even said he doesn't consider the movie an adaptation but, rather, a translation. I mean Rodrigeuz used the original comic book to plan the shots in the movie. There also wasn't any screenwriting, as it's pretty much all the dialouge from the book.

Also, the reason why you didn't learn much about some character is because the stories are out of sequence and those characters are more involved in other stories. Frank Miller even published the stories out of chronological order. Rodriguez plans on putting all the stories into movie form though. Also, not all the characters can be on screen all the time. That's why there's major and minor characters.

The stories go too fast due to time constraints though. All the stories were originally filmed as direct translations of the comics but, some things were cut. Not anything major was cut though.

It is a great film, considering what it's doing. All the acting is great though, even Willis. I have no idea what you see wrong with it.

[GhostMachine]

Search for my thread about Sin City 2 news.

There are going to be some stories in Sin City 2 that actually take place before the first movie. One of them features Dwight before he had plastic surgery (he gets plastic surgery during the story, I believe), and Marv will be back despite being executed in the first movie.

[TheSqauredCircleMessiah]

Michael Madsen saying Bruce Willis "Had a bum ticker" was the greatest line ever spoken.

I read on IMDB that Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller plan to shoot all the Sin City stories.

[Xero Gravity]

It is a great film, considering what it's doing. All the acting is great though, even Willis. I have no idea what you see wrong with it.

[Kaney]

First of all, Kaney, don't cut my head off.

ZPsycho pretty much summed it up. It's because it's such a faithful adapation of the comic books that it's just bizzare and awesome to see it on the big screen. For me at least, it was something different and refreshing, and the film just added the finishing touch to the Sin City gloss. It's the same sort of appeal in seeing Spiderman movies, or the X-Men. Except darker, and bloodier >_>

[EddieG]

I don't even think it's a decent film.. I think it sucked

[Johnny Latino Heat]

Add me to the list of people who didn't like the movie :ohwell:

[armyman2004]

Personally, I got chills watching the movie. I have every Sin City story published so watching it come to life on the "silver screen" had me nervous... until the first few frames. All my reservations disappeared as the movie progressed. I know I sat there in darkness with a stupid fanboy, ear-to-ear grin.

I realize the dialogue can come off "cheesy" to those that see the movie, but didn't read the comics. There were people in the audience snickering here and there at some dialogue, but again, Rodriguez and Miller made the movie as a faithful homage to the comic. In essence, THIS movie was made for the fans of the books. Period.

I can't say enough good things about the film and impatiently wait for the second to take me to new heights of fanboy excitement from the first frame to the last.

[therockbox]

I thought Clive Owen was shit, personally. His idea of acting seems to be speaking in a deeper voice, almost ruined a film I otherwise enjoyed.

[TMM]

When I saw it the first time, I thought it was fantastic, just purely brilliant looking and everything. However, I saw it a second time a week or two later with another friend, and it was boring, I didn't like it.

It's one of those films I'll probably not watch for another five years in full because apart from the way it's shot, and how it looks, there's nothing redeeming about it. The acting is really, really bad in some parts (bar Rourke). I can see why people love it because it is very well adapted, but still, way way over-rated.

[gregb7677]

I have yet to read the comics, they've been on my quite large "must read" list for years. Regardless I LOVE the movie and try to catch it whenever its on. its just a great movie hands down.

[Rashid]

First time I saw the movie, I'd give it 8/10. Then I bought the special DVD set that came with "The Hard Goodbye" graphic novel, and after reading it, and watching the movie again, i realised how faithful it was to the comic, and I now give it 9/10. Best film of 2005, and one of the top 10 films of the last 6 years.

[figos]

I'm sorry but the greatest movie of 2005 was Revenge Of The Sith. Followed by Sin City and King Kong.

[Liam]

Sin City is good when you see it first, but the second time, once you get over the stylish way it is shot, it just doesn't have that much to offer, really.

[ACCBiggz]

Outside of the good acting, despite what others say, and fantastic stories. The movie style in how the talk and such is a throwback and fits the style this is going for. One of the better movies I've seen in the past 10 years.

I'm sorry but the greatest movie of 2005 was Revenge Of The Sith.

[9 to 5]

Even I rate Sin City over that Star Wars effort.

[Zaz]

First of all, Kaney, don't cut my head off.

ZPsycho pretty much summed it up. It's because it's such a faithful adapation of the comic books that it's just bizzare and awesome to see it on the big screen. For me at least, it was something different and refreshing, and the film just added the finishing touch to the Sin City gloss. It's the same sort of appeal in seeing Spiderman movies, or the X-Men. Except darker, and bloodier >_>

[GhostMachine]

Question, for anyone who has seen the extended edition of Sin City:

What did they add that's not in the original version? I heard that either Jamie King has another nude scene or that the scene with Goldie in bed with Marv is extended, but that's about all I've heard.